John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done.
-Luke 3:19, NLT
Wayne Grudem, a prominent evangelical theologian, recently penned a piece endorsing Donald Trump for President. It is entitled “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” (click on title for link to article).
I wish this was a joke. It is not.
To save you the trouble of reading the article, I will briefly summarize the thrust of it:
Essentially, Grudem argues that Trump may be a flawed candidate but is better than putting Clinton in office. He will move our evangelical agenda forward better than Hillary.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time…
But I digress.
Grudem makes this argument with full acknowledgement and awareness of Trump’s history of marital infidelity. After naming a few Trump flaws that Grudem considers real flaws (as opposed to mere “trumped-up” ones), he writes:
He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.
Such a stance disgusts me.
I simply do not get it.
How can you argue–as a Christian leader and prominent theologian–that marital infidelities–i.e. more than one!–coupled with a total disregard for the need to repent of said infidelities to God is anything but morally disqualifying?!
Further, the argument breaks down about Trump being a better option when you consider how easily he flip-flops on his positions. Grudem addresses this concern about Trump not keeping his promises in office by stating:
My reply is that we can never know the future conduct of any human being with 100% certainty, but in making an ethical decision like this one, we should base the decision on the most likely results. In this case, the most likely result is that Trump will do most or all of what he has said.
Come on! Really?! That’s your assessment?!
Psychology 101 teaches us that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. That is the basis for much screening regarding suicide risk as I have been taught.
Trump has violated more than one of his marriages via infidelity. So, he has a history of repeated violations of the most sacred of human vows–i.e. marriage vows regarding fidelity.
So, the “most likely results” based on that knowledge is that Trump will break his promises if it suits him while in office just as he has done according to his marriage history. To argue otherwise is dangerously naive and foolish!
As to the charge that Trump is merely flawed like all humans, I have issues with that line of reasoning as well. It is one thing to commit adultery and repent as King David did. It is another to be remorselessly unfaithful as Trump is and has been–i.e. seeing no need to ask for God’s forgiveness on such matters.
King David was flawed. Trump is remorselessly wicked and not very unlike Herod Antipas was in John the Baptist’s day. The Christian response is to rebuff such wickedness and not reward such a moral reprobate with more power or a “Christian” endorsement!
Finally, I feel very strongly about this matter not because I endorse the other major party candidate. For what it’s worth, I don’t. I feel strongly about this matter as I have issues with any Christian leader endorsing and promoting a political leader who is a remorseless cheater. Big issues!!!
Such an endorsement amounts to a betrayal of faithful spouses and the victims of cheaters in general.
Such an endorsement dishonors marriage, which is in direct opposition of our biblical mandate to do otherwise (see Hebrews 13:4).
Such an endorsement tells me that this Christian leader does not take marital infidelity (and all the other sins that come with it) seriously–i.e. at least not even enough to withhold an endorsement.
I am sickened by Wayne Grudem’s endorsement. It feels like a sellout. And it is yet another glaring example of how evangelical leaders still do not take marital infidelity seriously.